Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Strong converse for finite-alphabet DMCs

Statement

Let W be a finite DMC with finite nonempty input and output alphabets and no input-cost constraint. For any sequence of length-n codes with lim inf⁡n→∞n−1ln⁡Mn>C(W), the average success probability tends to zero; hence both average and maximal error tend to one.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite DMC W and a sequence of deterministic length-n codes with Mn messages.

[F1]

Finite DMC information capacity is attained and Capacity-achieving output laws bound every row divergence: a maximizing input law PX∗ exists, and for Q∗:=PX∗W every row is supported on Q∗ with D(W(⋅∣x)∥Q∗)≤C(W).

[F2]

Uniform concentration around the capacity output divergence bound: for every fixed η>0, uniformly over input words xn, the probability under Wn(⋅∣xn) that ln⁡(Wn(Yn∣xn)/(Q∗)n(Yn))>n(C(W)+η) is at most V/(nη2).

[F3]

Fixed-length codes for a finite DMC and Average and maximal error of a fixed-length code: the decoder regions Dm:={yn:d(yn)=m} are pairwise disjoint, and average success is Mn−1∑mWn(Dm∣e(m)).

Proof

1.1F1F2F3givenalgebra

By [F1] choose a maximizing input law PX∗ and set Q∗:=PX∗W. Fix a blocklength n, a codeword xmn=e(m), and a threshold τ. Split Dm within the support of Wn(⋅∣xmn) into outputs where ln⁡(Wn(yn∣xmn)/(Q∗)n(yn))>τ and the supported complement. The first part has channel probability at most the threshold-tail probability in [F2]. On the supported complement, Wn(yn∣xmn)≤eτ(Q∗)n(yn) by the likelihood ratio; outside the support, Wn(yn∣xmn)=0, so the same inequality holds there. Hence the remaining channel probability is at most eτ(Q∗)n(Dm).

2.1F2F3step 1.1algebra

Average the bound in step 1.1 over messages. The tail term is at most V/(nη2) uniformly by [F2]. Pairwise disjointness from [F3] gives ∑m(Q∗)n(Dm)≤1, so average success is at most V/(nη2)+eτ/Mn.

3.1F3step 2.1givenchoosealgebra∎

Choose η>0 such that eventually n−1ln⁡Mn≥C(W)+2η, which is possible by the strict liminf hypothesis. Set τ=n(C(W)+η). Then eτ/Mn≤e−nη, and step 2.1 bounds success by V/(nη2)+e−nη→0. Thus average error tends to one. Since maximal error is at least average error, it too tends to one.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

22 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources